Hardship To Litigants Must Be Compensated From His Own Pocket: Gujarat High Court Imposes ₹1 Lakh Cost On Collector
The High Court quashed the Collector’s order rejecting NA permission on grounds it had earlier set aside, and directed him to pay ₹1 lakh cost from his own salary.
The Gujarat High Court has imposed a cost of ₹1,00,000/- on the Collector, Ahmedabad, to be paid from his own salary, for rejecting a non-agricultural (NA) use permission application on the same grounds that the Court had earlier quashed, and for ignoring the Court’s directions to decide it within the statutory period.
The Court observed that every person is required to respect and obey the orders of the Court with due dignity for the institution, and that Government Departments are no exception to it. Where the Government departments neither obey the order nor approach the Court in time, the only possible inference in law is that such party disobeys the order of the Court.
The Court quashed the order passed by the Collector and restored the application of the petitioner with a direction to decide the same as per its earlier decision within the statutory period.
The Bench of Justice M. K. Thakker observed, “This is not the first instance where the Collector has acted as a superpower authority and considering himself as a person, who can act according to his own whims and wish. The litigants are relegated to same authorities under the expectation that the wisdom would prevail to the Collector and they would act in accordance with law… In the opinion of this Court, the hardship which is caused to the litigants is required to be compensated by Collector himself from his own pocket.”
Advocate Sunil S Joshi appeared for the Petitioner, while AGP Jay Trivedi appeared for the Respondents.
Brief Facts
A writ petition was filed seeking quashing of the order passed by the Collector, Ahmedabad, and a declaration that the permission sought by the petitioner for NA use of her agricultural land is deemed to have been granted in view of the proviso to Section 65(1) of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879.
The application filed by the petitioner under Section 65 of the Code came to be rejected on the ground that no approval as per Section 63 of the Tenancy Act had been obtained in the earlier sale transactions, based on the negative opinion of the Mamlatdar and ALT and the Collector (Land Reforms).
The said order was challenged before the High Court. The High Court quashed the order, holding that it was passed on grounds distinct from the powers provided under Section 65 of the Code. The Court directed the petitioner to prefer a fresh application, which was to be decided within the statutory period taking into consideration the ratio laid down in Tusharbhai Harjibhai Ghelani v. State of Gujarat (2019) 4 GLR 2578.
Pursuant to the directions, the petitioner filed a fresh application, which was acknowledged by the authority. She also made a representation drawing the attention of the Collector to the orders of the Court. However, the application was again rejected on due to the negative opinion of ALT and DCLR, with an observation that a proposal had to be made to the Government regarding filing of a Letters Patent Appeal against the order.
Contentions of the Parties
The petitioner contended that, again on the same ground and without considering the directions issued by the Court, the application came to be rejected with an observation that the State authorities were in the process of filing a Letters Patent Appeal. It was submitted that the impugned order was required to be quashed by imposing exemplary cost on the Collector for not following the orders and directions issued by the Court.
The State contended that, at the relevant point of time, the State was in the process of filing a Letters Patent Appeal and therefore such orders were passed by the Collector. It was admitted that, as on date, no such Letters Patent Appeal had been filed. However, it was submitted that if the petitioner was relegated to the Collector with a direction to file a fresh application, the same would be considered in accordance with the Circular issued by the Revenue Department.
Observations/Findings of the Court
The Court noted that the Collector had passed an order on the same line which was earlier quashed by it, and that too beyond the statutory period of 90 days. It observed, “Ignoring all the directions and considering himself above the law, the Collector has passed an order on the same line which was earlier quashed by this Court in the writ petition beyond the statutory period of 90 days, though direction was issued to decide the same within statutory period.”
It was also noted that though more than seven months had passed, no Letters Patent Appeal had been filed.
The Court remarked, “The department or instrumentalities of the State must act expeditiously as per the orders of the Court, and if such orders postulate any schedule, then it must be adhered to. Whenever some of the obstructions or difficulties in compliance with the orders of the Court are there, then it is expected from the Government departments or its functionaries to approach the Court promptly by taking appropriate recourse available under the law.”
The Court further observed, “Where the Government departments neither obeys the order nor approach to the Court in time, then only possible inference in law is that such party disobeys the order of the Court. In other words, intentionally not carrying out the order of the Court. Flagrant violation of the Court’s order would reflect the attitude of the officer concerned to undermine the authority of the Courts, its dignity and the administration of justice. In the case on hand, the Court is drawing such inference against the officer, viz. the Collector.”
As regards the reliance placed by the State on the Revenue Department’s Circular, the Court noted that it was subsequent to the decision rendered by the Collector, and observed, “However, in the said Circular also no any law has been enacted and only directions were issued to the authorities to act in accordance with the guidelines and the law laid down by this Court as well as by the Apex Court.”
The Court added that even otherwise also, when Section 65 provides only to consider the occupancy and nature of the land at the time of deciding the application for NA use permission, there was no requirement to go beyond such aspect.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the impugned order and restored the application of the petitioner to its original file.
The Court directed the Collector to deposit the cost of litigation, quantified at ₹1,00,000/-, before the Registry within one month from his own salary. It further directed that if the Collector fails to deposit the amount, the State authority shall deposit the same and recover it from the salary of the Collector. The amount shall be disbursed to the petitioner after due verification by way of an electronic mode.
Cause Title: Bhumikaben v. Collector, Ahmedabad & Anr. [Neutral Citation: 2026:GUJHC:71914]
Appearances:
Petitioner: Advocate Sunil S Joshi, Advocate Amit M Lashwani
Respondents: AGP Jay Trivedi